A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence

Like Onifre, I'm curious about the evidence that the process of descent with modification and natural selection was designed rather than occurred naturally.--Percy

You have it backwards. Theories aren't accepted because no one has been able to falsify them. They become accepted because of the evidence in their favor. What is the evidence in favor of design and of a designer?--Percy

Hi Peg,This is the [forum=-10] forum, where the underlying premise is that an intelligent designer is responsible for perceived design in nature. The goal of the intelligent design movement is to avoid appeals to supernatural intervention in order to avoid association with religious groups promoting creation science.The content of your post is almost pure creation science, precisely what intelligent design is trying to avoid association with.You might want to just audit this thread.--Percy

Advocates of intelligent design work very hard to convey the impression that their work is scientific and not religious. When people like yourself draw associations between the designer and the God of the Bible, which is the problem with your Message 31, it directly contradicts their claims of scientific legitimacy.If this still doesn't make sense then this isn't really the place to discuss it. If you propose a new thread we can discuss it there. This thread is about how well the proposed designer comports with the available evidence.--Percy

Once they start calling the designer God we've got all the information we need.--Percy

Same reaction as Coyote: all your talk of God and Adam and the sabbath and resting on the seventh day just convinces people that intelligent design is not science but religion.Advocates of intelligent design must cringe every time you post.--Percy

That at a single mention of God you immediately drop into "preach" mode makes clear that what you're spouting is your religious beliefs. The degree to which your successful at restraining yourself from saying what you really believe does not fool anyone. To you the intelligent designer is the God of the Bible, just as it was to Behe at Dover.We're up to message 65, it's well past time to answer the question. What's the physical evidence for the intelligent designer? Please don't wast everyone's time and just make stuff up off the top of your head. If you don't have an answer, don't reply.--Percy

Hi Peg,A slight modification to the architecture of the throat would make it possible to drink and breath at the same time. All other primates as well as human infants can do this, and it is believed that our evolutionary relatives and ancestors, such as the Neanderthals and Australopithecines could, too.On the downside, it might have a profound negative effect on our ability to clearly enunciate. Providing concurrent breathing/drinking capability along with clear articulation might not be possible.--Percy

You know, it's funny how creationists claim that creation science and intelligent design have nothing to do with religion, that they are just as much science as evolution, and should therefore be taught in public school science classrooms, but you get 'em talking and they just can't stop introducing God into the discussion.When I put the [forum=-10] forum in with the rest of the science forums it was to give the benefit of the doubt to intelligent design proponents that it is science and not religion. Anyway, could we keep the focus on the science?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

I don't think that a thread about the physical evidence for the designer is the right place for a discussion about the foundational underpinnings of the intelligent design movement, but it would be a great topic for a new thread. See [forum=-25].--Percy

Coyote was only responding to your introduction of the supernatural back in your Message 167: Coyote was just responding to your supernatural claim.--Percy

This thread is about what the physical evidence allows us to conclude about the designer. Since we're only considering physical evidence, the supernatural doesn't have a role to play in this thread, and so, presumably, neither does God, and neither does the nature of reality. There's nothing wrong with occasional divergences, but maybe you could touch on the topic every now and then?--Percy

Anyone got anything to say about physical evidence for the designer? Anyone? Anyone at all? Hello?--Percy

Hi Tony,Intelligent design has become a hot topic because of claims by religious conservatives that it represents legitimate science deserving of time in public school science classrooms. The secular response is that it is religion.When you introduce God into the conversation you automatically concede that intelligent design really *is* religion. So for these two reasons:

• Even though you march zombie-like forward seemingly unaware that you are committing the mother of all faux pas in terms of this debate, it loses the debate outright when you introduce God into the discussion. In the sense of all that is fair and sporting, we just can't let you keep putting a loaded gun to your head and pulling the trigger. Where's the challenge in that for us? Plus it gets old after a while, and it's already been a while.
  ​
• This thread is in the science forums. Religious topics should be taken to one of the religion forums

Please stop introducing religion into the discussion. Keep your focus on the scientific aspects of intelligent design. This thread is about the physical evidence for the designer.--Percy

This is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum, where the attempt is made to carry one's point simply by claiming that because something is already widely believed that it must already have been widely established as true. Everyone used to know the sun orbited the Earth, and so one could have argued against Copernicus on the basis of common knowledge. Unfortunately for common knowledge, Copernicus had science on his side.But that life can only be intelligently designed has not only not been scientifically established, it doesn't even have the status of being common knowledge. I assume you think its common knowledge because everyone you come in contact with accepts it, but this is not true for the entire country where intelligent design continues to cause controversy.A few years ago there was a trial in Dover, Pennsylvania, because the school board attempted to teach intelligent design in the classroom and many people in the community did not believe it was science, and this was a very religiously conservative community. Try promoting intelligent design in cities like New York, Boston, Chicago and Los Angeles and you'll find a much smaller percentage of people who accept such ideas.This thread attempts to bring the light of scientific inquiry to the question of whether there is any evidence for the designer. Claims of common knowledge are just attempts to do an end-run around requests for evidence. Even if the existence of the designer were actually common knowledge that had been widely established as true, there must originally been some pretty convincing evidence. Where is this evidence?--Percy